'^ 


aw  Lib 


H0703bo 
190b 


A 

A— ^ 

0=1 
n  ^ 

U  ^ 

7  ==o 

2  =? 
9  s 

7—1 

4  s 

4^§ 

^^tiii'i 

'^ 

fef:' 
mrs 


fc: 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^B  'iv''' 

;:;;1 

LAW  LIBRARY 

^^n 

^v 

1 

liscoNSiN    Frbk   Library   Commission 
JISLATIVE    Reference   Department 

ICOMPARATIVE  LEGISLATION  BlILLETIN 

No    9 


BOYCOTTING 


GROVER  G.  HUEBNER 


MADISON,  WISCONSIN 
October,  1906 


The  many  controversies  to-day  over  boycotting, 
blacklisting,  the  use  of  injunctions  etc.,  have  been  the 
cause  of  much  legislation.  This  bulletin  giving  a 
summary  of  legislation  on  boycotting,  will  be  found 
useful  to  all  interests  involved,  as  it  is  entirely  im- 
partial. 

A  bulletin  on  blacklisting  will  soon  be  issued. 
Charles  AIcCarthy 
Legislative  Reference  Department 


BOYCOTTING 


GROVER  G.  HUEBNER 


Comparative   Cegislatiom  Bulletin  —  No.  9  —  October.  1906 
Prepared  with  the  co-operation  of  the  Political  Science  De- 
partment of  the  University  of  Wisconsin 


Wisconsin  Free  Librart  C'cmmissiun 

Lb  itSLATIVE  Rbference  Dep't 

Madison    Wis. 

190i 


CONTENTS 


Page 

REFERENCES  3 

DEFINITIONS  5 

Forms  of  Boycotting 6 

Compound  boycott 6 

Primary  boycott 6 

Unfair  list 6 

Fair  list ' 

Union  label ' 

LAWS  AND  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 8 

Foreign  countries 8 

United  States 10 

SUMMARY 23 

Legality  of  Boycotting 23 

Compound  boycott 23 

Primary  boycott 28 

Unfair  list 23 

Fairlist 24 

Union  label 24 

Statutes  Against  Botcotting 24 

Picketing 24 

Conspiracy  against  workmen 24 

Intimidation  — 25 

Interference  with  employment 25 

General  statutes 25 

Prohibition  of  boycotting  in  name  26 

CocET  Intehfebence 26 

Common  law .- 26 

Illegal  acts  accompanying  boycotts 26 

C      Injunctions 26 


^  REFERENCES 


^  

Adams,  T.  S.  and  Sumner,  Helen.    Labor  problems. 

Contains  general  statement,  criticism  and  classification  of  facts 
and  laws. 

Eddy,  A.  J.     Law  of  conibiiiatioiis.     2  vols.     Chicago,  1901. 

Numerous  laws  and  court  decisions  stated  and  criticised. 

Great  Britain  — Koyal  conimi.ssioii  on  trade  disputes  and 
coml)inations.  London.  1000.  Report.  (Parliament. 
Sessional  papers,  C(L  2825,  2820) 

Contains  statement  of  British  law  and  court  decisions. 

Massachusetts  —  Bui-eau  of  statistics  of  labor.  Lal)or 
bulletin.     Boston. 

Issued  quarterly.    Contains  current  laws,  statistics  and  court  de- 
cisions. 

Masse,  D.     Legislation  du  travail.     Paris,  1!)04. 

Contains  laws  and  court  decisions  affectinp  boycottiuK  iei  foreiRn 
countries. 

New  York  (state) —  Dep't  of  labor.     Bulletin.     All>any. 

Issued  quarterly.    Contains  current  laws,  statistics  and  court  de- 
cisions. 

New  York  (state)-  Dep't  of  labor.  Reports.  Albany, 
1885-1892. 

Best  collection  of  statistics  available. 

StimsON,  F.  .1.  Handbook  to  the  lal)or  law  of  the  U.  S. 
New  York,  1890. 

Statement  and  criticism  of  laws  and  court  decisions. 


U.  S.  — ludiistrial   commission.     Report,     vols.    5,   16     19 
Washington,  1900-02. 

vol.    5.    American  boycotting  laws,  p.  134. 

vol.  19.    General  explanation  of  the  problem,  p.  883. 

U.  S.— Labor  dep't.     Special  report,     vol.  10.     Washing- 
ton, 1904.  ^ 

Collection  of  labor  laws  of  U.  S.  to  1904. 


BOYCOTTING 


DEFINITIONS 


Connecticut.  The  term  boycott  is  a  coinpcjidious 
name  used  to  describe  a  series  of  acts  not  in  the  line 
of  lawful  competition,  commenced  and  continued  by 
all  persons  who  can  be  persuaded  to  join  in  them,  to 
hinder  and  prevent  the  proper  pursuit  of  a  lawful 
business,  with  intent  to  injure  the  corporation,  firm  or 
individual  against  whom  the  boycott  is  directed. 
State  V.  Glidden,  1887,  55  Conn.  76. 

United  States.  "A  boycott  is  an  organized  effort 
to  exclude  a  person  from  business  relations  with 
others,  by  persuasion,  intimidation,  and  ether  acts 
which  tend  to  violence,  and  thereby  force  him,  from 
fear  of  resulting  injury,  to  submit  to  dictation  in  the 
management  of  his  affairs."  Casey  v.  Cinn.  Typo. 
Union  No.  3,  1891,  45  Fed.  135. 

A  combination  of  employees  to  compel  their  em- 
ployers, by  threats  of  quitting  and  by  actually  quit- 
ting their  service,  to  withdraw  from  a  mutually  prof- 
itable relation  with  a  third  person  having  no  effect  on 
the  character  or  reward  of  the  employees  services,  for 
the  purpose  of  injuring  such  third  person,  is  a  boy- 
cott. Thomas  v.  Cincinnati.  X.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co. 
1894,  62  Fed.  803. 

The  term  boycott  "implies  a  combination  to  inaugu- 


6  boycotti:ng 

rate  and  maintain  a  general  proscription  of  articles 
manufactured  by  the  party  against  whom  it  is  direct- 
ed." Oxley  Stave  Co.  v.  Coopers'  International 
Union,  1896,  72  Fed.  695. 

Michigan.  A  boycott  is  a  combination  of  several 
persons  to  cause  a  loss  to  a  third  person  by  causing 
others,  against  their  will,  to  withdraw  from  him  their 
beneficial  business  intercourse  through  threats,  that 
unless  a  compliance  with  their  demands  is  made,  the 
persons  forming  the  combination  will  cause  loss  or 
injury  to  him;  or  an  organization  formed  to  exclude 
a  person  from  business  relations  with  others  by  per- 
suasion, intimidation,  and  other  acts  of  violence,  and 
thereby  cause  him  through  fear  of  resulting  injury 
to  submit  to  dictation  in  the  management  of  his  af- 
fairs.    Beck  V.  Ry.  T.  P.  Union,  1898,  118  ^lich.  497. 

FORMS   OF   BOYCOTTING 

Compound  boycott 

The  boycott  involving  third  parties  is  commonly 
known  as  the  compound  boycott. 

Primary  boycott 

The  boycott  involving  only  the  persons  directly  in- 
terested in  the  dispute  is  known  as  a  primary  boy- 
cott. 

Unfair  list 

The  unfair  list  is  generally  a  list  of  employers  pub- 
lished in  labor  papers  and  magazines  in  order  to  in- 
duce the  readers  to  withhold  their  patronage  until 
compliance  with  the  demands  of  the  employees  has  been 
made.     It  is  not  always  regarded  as  a  boycott. 


BOYCOTTING  7 

Fair  list 

The  fair  list  is  the  opposite  of  the  unfair  list.  Le- 
gally it  is  not  included  under  boycotting. 

Union  label 

The  same  is  true  of  the  union  label.  Legally  it  is 
not  a  boycott  and  is  nowhere,  in  the  United  States, 
illegal. 


BOYCOTTING 


LAWS    AND  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 


Poreign  countries 

lingland.  Before  1875  the  common  law  of  crim- 
inal conspiracy  was  applicable.  Three  claiccs  of  con- 
spiracy were  recognized:  i.  where  the  end  to  be  ac- 
complished is  a  crime  in  each  of  the  conspiring  parties ; 
2.  where  the  purpose  of  the  conspiracy  is  lawful,  but 
the  means  to  be  resorted  to  are  criminal;  and  3.  where, 
with  a  malicious  design  to  do  an  injury,  the  purpose  is 
to  affect  a  wrong,  though  not  such  a  wrong  as  when 
perpetrated  by  a  single  individual  amounts  to  an  of- 
fense under  the  criminal  laws.^ 

Conspiracy  and  Protection  of  Property  Art.  1875, 
T)^  &  39  Vic.  c.  86.  This  modifies  the  common  law  so 
that  a  combination  to  do,  or  procure  to  be  done,  any 
act  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute, 
IS  not  indictable  as  a  conspiracy  if  such  act  when  com- 
mitted by  one  person  is  not  a  crime  punishable  with  im- 
prisonment. 

Though  pear^eful  boycotting  cannot  luider  thi.s  act  be 
ti'catcd  as  criminal  conspiracy,  it  can  be  treated  as  civil  con- 
spiracy and  (lainag'cs  collected.  Quinn  v.  Leathern,  1901,  17 
T.  L.  R   749. 

Tliis  case  is  now  generally  followed.  If  the  intent  of  the 
boycott  is  to  maliciously  injure  it  is  actionable  as  a  civil  con- 
spiracy." 


'  Report  of  the'Royal  Commission  of  1574. 

^  Bills  are  frequeatiy  introduced  to  change  this  act . 


BOYCOTTING  M 

This  statute  (sec.  T)  also,  prohibits  the  use  of  vio- 
lence, persistant  following  about,  hiding  of  tools,  cloths 
or  other  property,  the  watching  or  besetting  of  houses 
or  other  places  of  business  and  the  disorderly  following 
of  persons  by  two  or  more. 

Nczv  Zealand.  The  act  of  1S94,  no.  i;J,  changes  the 
mode  of  procedure  from  criminal  conspirac}-  to  civil 
conspiracy,  as  is  the  case  in  England. 

Belgium.  The  law  of  May  31,  1S6G,  moditicd  the 
law  of  conspiracy,  but  the  law  of  May  30,  1892.  levies 
severe  penalties  against  intimidation,  mob  rule  and  the 
breaking  of  tools.  There  is  no  statute  especially 
against  boycotting. 

Holland.  The  law  of  April  11,  IKO.").  reinforce.'^  the 
penalties  against  violence  and  threats,  which  were  al- 
ready provided  for  in  the  common  law.  There  is  no 
special  law  against  l^oycotting. 

Austria.  The  law  of  April  7,  1870.  art.  3.  i)enalizes 
violence,  threats  and  the  forcing  of  others  t("»  enter 
combinations  or  to  retire  from  sucli  comltinations. 
No  special  law. 

Prance.  The  penal  code  of  France  suspends  the 
common  law  and  regulates  strikes  and  the  ii"e  of  in- 
timidation, threats,  violence  and  similar  acts.  There 
is  no  statute  especially  applical)lc  to  boycotts 

If  a  strike  is  called  to  iHalici<»usly  iiijurc  tin-  I'liiiiloytT, 
rather  than  to  benefit  the  strikers,  it  calls  for  damages. 
Cass.  9  June,  ISitG,  Mouiiier  c.  Renaud. 

Interference  Avitb  employment  l>y  threats  is  pn>liil>ite<l. 
Cass.     ap.  Caen,  Oct.  21,  1897. 


10  BOYCOTTING 

Italy.  Pen.  Code.  art.  155,  et.  s.  Similar  to  the 
French  law. 

Germany.  The  law  of  June  21,  1869,  ^''t-  153  im- 
poses p^enalties  against  those  who  wish  to  coerce  others 
b}-  violence,  threats,  interdiction  or  otherwise. 

Str.  G.  13.  c.  360,  par.  11.  The  boycott  is  practi- 
cally declared  to  be  illegal.- 

United  States 

There  is  no  federal  law  directly  dealing  with  boy- 
cotts. The  Anti-truot  Law  has  been  applied  in  vari- 
ous cases  (U.  S.  Comp.  St.  1901,  Title  oGB.  p.  3200; 
Act  of  July  2,  1890.  sec.  1-8) 

Thomas  v.  Cincinnati,  N.  Or.  &  Tex.  Pae.  Ry.  1894,  62 
Fed.  803.  In  re  Phelan,  1894,  62  Fed.  Rep.  824:  U.S.  v. 
Debs  et  al.  1894,  64  Fed.  724:  U.  S.  v.  Cassidy  et  al.  1895, 
67    Fed.  698. 

Boycotts  have  also  ])een  declared  illegal  on  the  basis 

of  interference  with  the    provisions    of  the    Interstate 

Commerce  Law. 

In  re  Grand  Jury,  1894,  62  Fed.  40;  S.  Cal.  Ry.  v.  Ruth- 
erford et  al.  1894,  62  Fed.  796. 

Federal  courts  have  also  taken  account  of  the  law 

against  interference  with  the  United  States  mails. 

In  re  Grand  Jury,  1894,  62  Fed.  840;  U.  S.  v.  Cassidy 
et  al.  1895,  07  Fed.  698.  U.  S.  v.  Debs  et  al.  1894,  64  Fed. 
724. 

Federal  courts  sometimes  declare  boycotting  to  be 
unlawful  interference  with  another's  business  and  pun- 
ishable under  the  common  law  of  conspir^cy.^  In- 
junctions have  very  frequently  been  granted  against 
boycotts  by  federal  courts. 

5  In  Enffland  the  courts  may  punish  a  peaceable  boycott  only  as  a  civil 
conspiracy.  In  the  United  States  it  may  be  punished  as  a  criminal  con- 
spiracy.   See  page  8. 


BOYCOTiI^G  11 

Alabama.  Laws,  1903,  no.  329,  sec.  1-4.  It  is  un- 
lawful for  two  or  more  persons  to  conspire  to  prevent 
a  lawful  Ixisiness.  or  for  any  person  to  go  near  or  loi- 
ter about  the  premises  of  business  in  order  to  mfluence 
others  not  to  deal  with  a  person,  firm  or  corporation, 
or  to  picket  in  order  to  interfere  with  a  lawful  busi- 
ness, or  to  print  or  circulate  notice  of  a  "boycott," 
boycott  cards,  stickers,  dodgers  or  "unfair  lists,"  or  to 
publish  that  such  action  is  contemplated.  No  black- 
list, unfair  list,  or  similar  list  can  be  punished  because 
of  any  lawful  act  or  decision  of  a  judicial  or  public 
official.  Penalty  is  fine  not  less  than  $50  nor  more 
than  $500.  or  imprisonment  not  over  sixty  da}-s.  Gen- 
eral provisions  against  interference  with  employment 
and  the  use  of  intimidation  arc  included  in  this  statute. 

Arizona.  Pen.  Code,  1901,  sec.  110.  General  Con- 
spiracy  Law.     Application  doubtful. 

Arkansas.  Dig.  1904,  sec.  5030.  General  law  pro- 
hibiting interference-  with  employment  when  uncL-r 
contract.     Application  doubtful. 

California.  Pen.  Code,  1903,  c.  289,  sec.  i.  Xo 
agreement  to  do  an  act  in  furtherance  of  a  t'-ade  dis- 
pute shall  be  deemed  criniinal.  l>e  indictable  as  a  crim- 
inal conspirac}'  or  be  enjoined  when  such  act  if  com- 
mitted by  an  individual  is  not  punishable  a^  a  crime. 
Force  or  violence  is,  howe\ier.  prohibited. 

Yet  iu  Joidahl  v.  Hayda  et  al.  1905,  82  Pac.  1079,  it  was 
held  that  V>oycotting  is  eujoined  when  there  are  acts  of  in- 
timidation in  tlireatenino-  prospective  customer.s  and  that  it 
is  not  necessarj-  to  show  actual  exercise  of  physical  force  or 
violence. 

Colorado.     Acts,  1905.  c.  79,  sec.  1-5.     It  is  a  mis- 


12  BOYCOTTING 

demeanor  for  any  person  to  loiter  about  or  parole 
streets,  alleys,  roads,  highways,  trails  or  places  of  busi- 
ness, to  influence  others  not  to  deal  with  any  person, 
firm  or  corporation,  or  to  picket  in  order  to  interfere 
with  or  obstruct  any  lawful  businesiS.  or  to  print  or 
circulate  notice  of  "boycott."  boycott  cards,  stickers, 
banners,  signs,  or  dodgers,  or  to  publish  the  name  of 
any  judicial  or  public  officer  in  an}'  of  tlu.^  above  man- 
ners because  of  an\-  lawful  act  or  decision.  Penalty  is 
fine  not  less  than  $1U  nor  more  than  $"350  or  imprison- 
ment not  OA^er  sixty  days,  or  both.  The  statute  includes 
provisions  against  intimidation  and  force. 

Connecticut.  Gen.  St.  1902,  sec.  1296.  General 
iStatute  against  intimidation  and  threats  to  prevent  in- 
terference in  lawful  action. 

This  statute  cover.s  boycotting.  State  v.  Glidden,  1887, 
8  At.  890. 

Delaware.  Rev.  Code,  1893,  p.  928.  Prohibition  of 
interference  with  employment  in  case  of  s^^'-ikes  on 
railroads.     Application  doubtful. 

District  of  Columbia.^ 

Florida.  Acts,  1893,  c.  4144.  General  statute  pro- 
hibiting conspiracy  against  workingmen. 

Georgia.  Pen.  Code,  1895,  sec.  1 19-126.  Tt  is  a 
misdemeanor  to  hinder  the  engagement  of  a  person  in 
a  lawful  business  by  threats,  violence,  intimidation  or 
other  unlawful  means. 

Laws,  1901,  no.  390,  sec.  1-4.  Statute  against  inter- 
ference with  employment. 


*  No  statute  against  boycotting. 


BOYCOTTl^^  13 

Idaho.  Ann.  Code,  1901,  sec.  4686.  General  con- 
spiracy act.     Application  doubtful. 

Illinois.  Rev.  St.  1905,  c.  38,  sec.  4G.  Two  or 
more  persons,  or  the  officers  or  executive  committee 
of  any  society,  organization  or  corporation  who  issue 
any  circular  or  edict  to  establish  a  so  called  "boycott" 
or  blacklist,  or  who  distribute  any  notices  Eradulently 
or  maliciously  intending  to  wrongfully  and  wickedly 
injure  the  person,  character,  business,  employment  or 
property  of  another,  or  who  do  an  illegal  act  injurious 
to  the  public  trade,  health,  morals,  police  or  administra- 
tion of  public  justice,  or  who  prevent  competition  in 
letting  out  public  contracts  or  who  induce  persons  not 
to  enter  such  competition,  arc  guilty  of  conspiracy. 
Penalty  is  imprisonment  in  the  state  penitentiary  not 
over  five  years,  or  fine  not  over  $2,000,  or  both. 

A  circular  of  a  business  association  directinj?  nieiubers  not 
to  deal  with  a  certain  person  for  alleg'ed  default  toward  an- 
other member  is  not  actionable.  Ulery  v.  ('hi.  Live  Stock 
Exchange,  1894,  54  111.  App.  233. 

c.  38,  sec.  158.  General  statute  against  intimidation 
by  combinations. 

c.  18,  sec.  159.  Act  against  the  intimidation  of 
workmen.  ' 

c.  38,  sec.  160.  Act  against  the  entering  of  premises 
to  intimidate. 

Indiana.  Ann.  St.  1901.  sec.  3312m-3312u.  Any 
person,  firm  or  association  of  persons  agreeing  to  pre- 
vent any  wholesale  or  retail  dealer  or  manufacturer 
from  selling  to  any  dealer,  mechanic  or  artisan,  or  any 
one  who  obeys  such  request,  because  said  dealer,  arti- 
san or  mechanic  is  not  a  member  of  a  combination  or 


14  BOyVOTTING 

association,  is  guilty  of  conspiracy  against  trade.  Such 
agreements  are  void  in  law.  Fine  not  less  than  $50 
nor  more  than  $2,000,  or  imprisonment  for  not  more 
than  one  year,  or  both.  County  prosecuting  attorney  is 
to  prosecute  violations.     Damages  may  be  granted. 

Iowa.  Code,  1897,  sec.  5059.  Conspiracy  with  the 
fraudulent  or  malicious  intent  wrongfully  to  injure 
the  person,  character,  business,  property  or  rights  in 
propert}^  of  another  i,5  prohibited.  Application  doubt- 
ful. 

Ka)isas.  Gen.  St.  1905,  sec.  2481.  It  is  unlawful 
for  any  person  or  persons  willfully  or  maliciously,  by 
any  act  or  by  intimidation,  to  interfere  or  conspire  to 
interfere  with  a  lawful  business.  .Application  doubt- 
ful. 

Kentucky.  St.  1903,  sec.  802-804.  Prohibits  the 
obstruction  of  railroads  etc.  by  violence,  intimidation 
and  coercion.     Application  doubtful. 

L&msiancL  Rev.  Laws,  1904,  sec.  944.  Law  against 
intimidation  of  seamen. 

^  Boycotting  a  hotel  by  refusing  to  buy  from  drummers  who 
stay  there  is  actionable  for  damages.  Webb  v.  J)rake,  1899, 
52  La.  Ann.  290. 

A  person  can  refuse  dealing  with  another  for  any  motive 
whatever,  but  cannot  always  influence  another  person  to  do 
the  same  for  any  motive.  Grraham  vs.  St.  Charles  St.  R. 
Co.  et  al.  1895,  115  So.  800. 

Maine.  Rev.  St.  1903,  c.  124,  sec.  9.  General 
statute  against  intimidation  in  case  of  strikes  of  gas, 
telegraph,  telephone,  electric  light,  electric  power  or 
railroad  corporations. 

c.    128.    sec.    20-21.     General    conspiracy    act.     The 


BOYCOTTING  13 

statute  includes  j^rovisions  against  intimidation,  force 

and  threats. 

There  can  be  a  boycott  without  combination.  Such  a  boy- 
cott grants  a  title  to  recover  damages.  Davis  v.  Starrelt, 
1903,  97  Me.  568. 

Maryland.     Pub.  Laws,  1904,  art.  27,  sec.  3-L.     An 

act  in  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute  cannot  lead  to 

prosecution  as  a  criminal  conspiracy  unless  such  act  be 

punishable  as  an  offense  when  committed  by  an  indi- 

viduaL  .      ^,g. 

Yet  in  My  Maryland  Lodge,  no.  180,  International  Asso- 
ciation of  Machinists  et  al.  v.  Adt,  1905,  59  At.  721,  the  in- 
juuction  of  the  lower  court  against  threatening  with  a  boy- 
cott and  unfair  list  was  continued. 

Massachusetts.  Rev.  St.  1902,  c.  106,  sec.  11.  Gen- 
eral statute  against  intimidation. 

A  boycott  with  intent  to  injure  another's  business  is  an 
illegal  conspiracy.  Motive  is  the  deciding  element.  Martell 
V.  White  et  al.  1901,  60  N.  E.  1085. 

Michigan.  Conip.  Laws,  1897,  sec.  11343.  Gen- 
eral statute  against  intimidation  of  employees. 

A  boycott  is  a  form  of  coercion  and  is  unlawful  and  en- 
joinable  even  though  peaceful.  Beck  v.  Ky.  Teamsters' 
Protective  Union,  1898,  118  Mich.  497. 

Minnesota.  Rev.  Laws,  1905,  sec.  1822.  General 
statute  against  interference  with  employment  and  co- 
ercion of  employees. 

sec.  4869.  Unlawful  to  conspire  to  interfere  with  a 
lawful  trade  on  calling  by  force,  threats  or  mtimida- 
tion. 

sec.  5140.  General  statute  against  the  use  of  co- 
ercion. 

sec.  5168.  A  statute  against  trusts  and  combina- 
tions so  extended  that  it  mav  effect  trade  IxDvcotts. 


16  BOYCOTTING 

Compound  boycott  oujoined.  Legality  of  unfair  list  de- 
pends upon  whether  it  portends  injury  to  the  plaintiff  so  as 
to  make  it  a  boycott.  Grey  et.  al.  v.  B.  T.  (".  et  al.  1903,  97 
N.  W.  G63. 

Mississippi.  Code,  1892,  sec.  1006.  General  con- 
spiracy act. 

sec.  1270.  It  is  unlawful  for  two  or  more  persons 
who  willfully  and  maliciously  combine  or  conspire 
to  obstruct  or  impede,  by  any  act  or  any  means  of  in- 
timidation, the  regular  operation  of  any  railroad. 

Acts,  1898,  c.  70,  sec.  I.  General  statute  against  in- 
timidation of  employees. 

Missouri.  Rev.  St.  1899',  sec.  2155..  General  stat- 
ute against  intimidation  of  employees  and  interference 
with  employment. 

Boycott  circular  is  not  illeg'al.  Freedom  of  speech  and 
press'  provided  for  in  the  Missouri  constitution.  Marx  & 
Hass  Jeans  Clothing  Co.  v.  Watson  et  al.  1902,  67  S.  W. 
391. 

Primary  boycott  is  legal.  Compound  boycott  is  an  illegal 
conspiracy  and  is  enjoinable.  Walsh  v.  Assoc.  Master 
Plumbers  of  St.  Louis  et  al.  1902,  71  S.  W.  455. 

Montana.  Pen.  Code,  1895,  sec.  320.  General  con- 
spiracy act.     Application  doubtful. 

Nebraska.^ 

Nevada.  Comp.  Laws,  1900,  isec.  4751.  General 
conspiracy  act.     Application  doubtful. 

Xczv  Hampshire.  Pub.  St.  1901,.  c.  266,  sec.  12. 
It  is  unlawful  for  any  person  to  interfere  or  endeavor 
to  interfere  in  any  way  in  order  to  injure  another  in 
his  property  or  lawful  business. 


'No  statute  au'ainst  boycotting. 


BOYCOTTING  17 

N CIV  Jersey.  Laws.,  1898,  c.  235,  isec.  37.  General 
conspiracy  act.     Application  doubtful. 

It  is  ac'tiouahU'  to  attempt  to  I'uin  anotlu'r''s  Imsincss  by 
intluciiiji:  wholesale  houses  not  to  sell  him  ^oods.  Van  Horn 
V.  Van  Hora,  18!)0,  20  At.  485. 

Trades  council  is  restrained  from  issuing  circulars  calling: 
on  the  members  of  unions  and  the  public  to  cease  Iniyiug 
and  advertising  in  the  boycotted  paper.  •  Barr  v.  Essex 
Trades  Council,  1894,  101  At.  881. 

Laws,  1903,  c.  257,  sec.  63.     Prohibits  interference 

with  railroad  operation  by  strikers. 

Nczv  Mexico.^ 

Nezv  York.  Parker's  Crim.  and  Pen.  Code,  1904, 
c.  1 68,  par.  5.  If  twO'  or  more  persons  conspire  to  hin- 
der another  in  the  exercise  oi  lawful  busines?  or  in 
doing-  any  lawful  act  by  force,  threats  or  intimidation, 
they  are  guilt}^  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Interference  by  outside  parties  and  attempts  to  enforce 
a  boycott  against  an  employer,  come  within  this  statute 
and  common  law  as  well.  Punishable  as  a  misdemeanor 
and  actionable  for  damages.  Old  Dominion  Steamship 
Co.  V.  McKeuua  et  al.  1887,  HO  Fed.  48. 

Compound  boycott  unlawful  and  liable  to  damages.  Ryan 
V.  Burger  &  Hower  Brewing  Co.     1891,  12  N.  Y.  Sup.  6G0. 

Refusal  to  sell  to  dealers  who  will  not  maintain  a  uniform 
price  is  not  an  actionable  boycott.  Parks  &  Sons  Co.  v. 
Nat.  VV.  D.  A.  1903,  175  N.  Y.  1. 

Laws,  1903,  c.  349.  It  is  a  misdemeanor  to  willfully 
deprive  a  member  of  the  national  guard  of  liis  em- 
ployment or  to  obstruct  him  or  his  employer  in  respect 
to  his  trade,  businesis  or  employment,  because  said 
guard  is  such  a  member. 

North  Carolina..  Unfair  list  not  actionable.  Court 
imphes  that  a  boycott  would  be  actionable.     Implies 


*No  statute  against  boycotting. 


18  JbOyCOTTING 

that  an  unfair  list  is  not  a  boxxott.  State  v.  Van  Pelt, 
1904,  49  S.  E.  177. 

North  Dakota.  Const.  1889,  art.  i.  Interference 
with  employment  iiS  a  misdemeanor. 

Pen.  Code,  1899,  sec.  7037.  Statute  prohibiting  con- 
spiracy against  workingmerL. 

sec.  7660-2.  Any  person  who,  by  force.  tJireats  or 
intimidation,  prevents  or  endeavors  to  prevent  another 
from  employing  any  person,  or  compels  a  change  of 
the  mode  of  business,  an  increase  or  decrease  of  the 
number  of  men.  or  the  rate  of  wages  or  time  of  ser- 
vice, is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.  Intimidation  of  em- 
ployees is  prohibited. 

Ohio. 

Union  held  liable  in  ease  o£  a  general  boycott  declared 
and  partly  carried  out.  Parker  v.  Bricklayers'  U.  No.  1, 
1899,  21  Wkly.  L.  Bui.  223. 

Union  injuring  business  by  notices  to  customers  that  deal- 
ing with  the  employer  will  result  in  themselves  being  boy- 
cotted is  illegal.  Moores  &  Co.  v.  Bricklavers'  U.  No.  I.  et 
al.  1890,  23  Wkly.  L.  Bui.  48. 

Oklahoma.  Ann.  &  Rev.  St.  1903,  sec.  2643. 
Statute  against  intimidation  of  employees. 

Oregon.  Ann.  Code  &  St.  1902,  sec.  lOyi.  Any 
person  who,  by  force,  threats  or  intimidation,  pre- 
vents or  endeavors  to  prevent  the  continuance  of  a 
man's  service  or  the  acceptance  of  new  service  by  him, 
Or  who  circulates  false  written  or  printed  statements, 
or  is  concerned  in  such  circulation,  to  prevent  a  person 
from  employing  another,  or  to  compel  him  Lo  employ 
another,  to  alter  hi,5  mode  of  business,  or  to  limit  or  in- 
crease the  number  of  employees,  their  wagc.^  or  time  of 
service,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 


BOYCOTTING  19 

A  boycott  uiiist  be  "  presistant,  aofg^ressive  and  virulent" 
before  :\u  injunction  is  proper  and  available.  LonL^sliore 
Printinj4-  Co.  v.  Howell,  l.S'Jl,  :{8  Pac.  547. 

Pennsylz'ania. 

The  maintenance  of  a  boycott  by  the  use  of  injurious  and 
threatening' acts  that  caused  the  plaintiff's  Inisiness  to  fall 
off  greatly  is  not  protected  by  the  law  protectinfi:  unions, 
but  the  parties  thereof  may  be  enjoined.  Brace  v.  Evans, 
1888,  5  Pa.  Co.  C.  163. 

Primarv  boycott  is  not  unlawful  coercion.  Buchanan  v. 
Barnes,  1894,  28  At.  195. 

Porfo  Rico.     Pen.    Code.    1902,    sec.    465.     Statute 

ag-ainst  intimidation    of    employees    and    interference 

with  employment.     Application  doubtful. 

Rhode  Island.  Gen.  LawiS.  1896,  c.  278,  sec.  8.  Gen- 
eral statute  against  intimidation  of  employees. 

c.  279,  sec.  45.     It    is   unlawful    for    any  person  to 

willfully  and  maliciously  or  mischievously    injure  or 

destroy  property,  or  hinder  a  lawful  busines". 

An  agreement  to  withdraw  patronage  from  any  dealer 
selling  supplies  to  others  than  master  plumbei's  is  not  evi- 
dence that  plumbers  conspired  to  ruin  complainant's  busi- 
ness.    Macauley  v.  Tierney.  1895,  33  At.  1. 

South  Carolina.  Laws,  1902.  no.  574,  sec.  5.  A 
combination  "boycotting"  any  person  or  corporation 
for  dealing  with  one  not  a  member  oi  the  combination 
is  guilty  of  conspiracy  to  defraud.  Applicable  to 
trade  boycotts  only. 

So'uth  Dakota.  Pen.  Code,  1903.  sec.  757-8.  Stat- 
ute against  intimidation  of  employers  and  employees. 

Tennessee. 

Maliciously  to  threaten  to  discharge  employees  if  they 
trade  with  a  third  party  is  not  actionable.  Threats  and  in- 
timidation to  break  up  a  man's  business  is  actionable. 
Payne  v.  Western  Ry.  Co.  1888,  13  Tenn.  521. 

Texa^.     Pen.    Code,  1895,    art.    309,  324.     General 


20  BOYCOTTI^yx 

Statute  against  intiinidation  of  employees  and  interfer- 
ence with  employment. 

art.  600.     Intimidation  of  employees  prohibited. 

art.  806-807.  Intimidation  of  railroad  employees 
prohibited. 

Laws,  1903,  c.  94,  sec.  3,  par.  2.  Any  two  or  more 
persons,  firms,  corporations  or  associations  who  agree 
to  boycott  any  person,  firm,  corporation  or  association 
for  buying  from  or  iselling  to-  any  other  person,  firm, 
corporation  or  association,  are  guilty  of  a  conspiracy 
in  restraint  of  trade.  Such  a  contract  is  void.  Pen- 
alty is  $50  per  day  of  violation  or  imprisonment  not 
less  than  one  nor  more  than  ten  years. 

Utah.  Laws,  1898,  sec.  4156.  General  conspiracy 
law.     Application  doubtful. 

Laws.  1905.  c.  16.  Threats  to  destroy  propv^rty  or  do 
bodily  injury  in  order  to  prevent  any  person  from  en- 
tering or  remaining  in  the  employ  of  any  company, 
corporation  or  individual,  is  a  misdemeanor. 

Vermont.  Laws.  1902,  c.  220,  sec.  5041-2.  Law 
against  intimidation  of  employees. 

Boycotting  is  a  criminal  conspiracy  under  the  common 
law.  The  intimidation  statute  is  mentioned.  State  v. 
Stewart,  1887,  59  Vt.  273. 

"It  is  clear  that  everyone  has  a  right  to  withdraw  his  own 
patronage  wlien  lie  pleases,  but  it  is  equally  clear  that  he 
has  no  right  to  employ  threats  or  intimidation  to  divei't  the 
patronage  of  anotlier."  What  one  num  may  do  may  not 
alwavs  be  done  bv  a  combination.  Actual  damages  gi-anted. 
Boutwell  et  al.  v."^Marr  et  al.  1S99,  42  At.  G07. 

Virginia. 

A  boycott  warrants  a  conviction  for  conspiracy.  Crump 
V.  Commonwealth,  1888,  84  Va.  927. 

IVashington.     Code,  1902,    sec.    6518.     I'rohibition 


BOYCOTTING  21 

of  intimidalion  in  the  case  of  coal  mines.     Application 
doubtful. 

A  compound  boycott  was  enjoined  under  the  common 
law.  Jensen  v.  Cooks  and  Waiters  Union  of  Seattle  et  al. 
1905,  81  Pae.  1009. 

IVcst  Virginia.  Code,  1899,  p.  10.33,  sec.  14.  Inter- 
ference with  employment  in  coal  mines  prohibited. 

A  boycott  is  a  malicious  and  wanton  interference,  and  is 
illegal  and  actionable.  W.  Va.  Transportation  Co.  v.  Stand- 
ard Oil  Co.  1902,  SH  Am.  St.  Kep.  89o. 

W.  \'a.  Dig.  1902,  vol.  1,  p.  003.  "No  statute  by  name 
making  boycotting  an  offense.  Whether  it  is  indictable 
under  the  statute  against  conspiracies  is  a  question.  The 
usual  I'emedy  is  by  injunction." 

Wisconsin.  Rev.  St.  1898,  sec.  4466a.  "Any  two  or 
more  persons  who  shall  combine,  associate,  agree, 
mutuall}'  undertake  together  for  the  purpose  of  will- 
fully or  maliciously  injuring  another  in  his  reputation, 
trade,  business  or  profession  by  any  means  whatever, 
or  for  the  purpose  of  maliciously  conipelling  another 
to  do  or  perform  any  act  against  his  will,  0/  prevent- 
ing or  hindering  another  from  doing  or  pei  forming 
any  lawful  act  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in 
the  county  jail  not  more  than  one  }-ear  or  by  fine  not 
exceeding  $500." 

sec.  446Gc.  Prohil)ition  of  interference  with  em- 
ployment. 

sec.  4568.  Conspiracy.  "Any  person  guilty  of  a 
criminal  conspiracy  at  common  law  shall  be  puniohed 
by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  more  than  one 
year  or  by  fine  not  exceeding  $500;  but  no  c^greement. 
except  to  commit  a  felony  upon  the  person  of  another 
or  to  commit  arson  or  burglary,  shall  be  deemed  a 
conspiracy  or  punished  as  such  unless  some  act,  beside 


22  BOYCOTTING 

such  agreement,  be  done  to  effect  the  object  thereof 
by  one  or  more  of  the  parties  of  such  agreement." 
Application  doubtful. 

JVyoming.'' 


'  No  statute  against  boycottiug. 


BOYCOTTING  23 


SUMMAKY 


LEGALITY  OF  iSOYCOTTS 

The  compound  boycott 

The  compound  boycott,  in  which  tliird  parties  are 
boycotted  or  threatened  with  a  lx)ycott,  is  ahr.ost  uni- 
versally declared  illegal,  both  under  common  and 
statutory  law.  Courts  usually,  though  not  always, 
have  reference  tO'  this  form  of  boycott  when  they  use 
the  term  "boycott." 

The  primary  boycott 

The  primary  boycott,  in  which  third  parties  are  not 
attacked  or  threatened,  is  of  doubtful  legality.  ]\Iany 
courts  uphold  its  legality  in  the  absence  of  intimida- 
tion, but  others  hold  the  opposite.  Generally  if  these 
boycotts  portend  willful  and  malicious  injury  to  the 
boycotted  party,  they  are  illegal;  if  they  portend  ben- 
efit to  the  boycotters,  they  are  legal.  This  is,  how- 
ever, not  a  universal  rule.  The  primary  trade  boycott 
is  the  one  most  frequently  upheld  by  the  courts. 

The  unfair  list 

The  legality  of  the  unfair  list  has  seldom  bren  test- 
ed in  the  courts. 

The  court  of  appeals  continued  an  injunction  of  the  lower 
court  ag^ainst  threateninpr  an  unfair  li.st.  iMy  Maryland 
lodge,  No.  186,  et  al.  v.  Adt.  1905,  59  At.  7L'l. 


24  BOYCOTx'I]sG 

The  legalitj-  of  the  unfair  list  depends  upon  whether  or  not 
it  portends  injury  to  the  plaintiff  so  as  to  make  it  a  boycott. 
Grey  et  al.  v.  Building  Trades  Council  et  al.  1903,  97  N.  W. 
663. 

It  was  held  that  an  unfair  list  is  not  actionable.  State  v. 
Van  Pelt,  1904,  49  S.  E.  177. 

Alabama  has  a  statute  which  declares  the  unfair  list  illegal. 

The  fair  list 

The  fair  list  has  nowhere  in  the  United  States  been 
declared  illegal  and  is  not  legally  a  boycott. 

The  union  label 

The  union  label  is  legal.  The  great  majority  of  the 
stat€5  and  territories  have  statutes  expressly  legaliz- 
ing and  protecting  it.     Legally  it  is  not  a  boycott. 

STATUTES    AGAINST    BOYCOTTING 

Picketing 

Certain  states  have  statutes  definitely  prohibiting 
picketing  and  loitering  about  to  interfere  with  a  law- 
ful business.  These  laws  afifect  boycotting  inasmuch 
as  they  prohibit  pract'ces  which  sometimes  accompany 
boycotts. 

See  Ala.  and  Col. 

Conspiracy  against  workmen 

In  eight  states  there  arc  laws  prohibiting  conspir- 
acy against  workmen.  These  affect  some  boycotts  by 
reaching  a  practice  which  sometimes  accompanies  a 
boycott.  The  general  conspiracy  laws  of  some  of  the 
states  are  of  the  same  nature. 

See  Fla.,  Ga.,  111.,  Kan.,  Minn..  Miss.,  N.  Y.  and  N.  D. 


BOYCOTiING  25 

Intimidation 

Many  states  and  territories  have  statutes  against 
the  general  use  of  intimidation,  force,  coercion  and  vi- 
olence. While  these  statutes,  under  the  interpretation 
of  some  courts.,  do  not  affect  all  boycotts,  they  cover 
at  least  those  in  which  there  is  manifest  intimidation. 
They  reach  some  peaceful  boycotts,  as  seme  courts 
hold  that  a  peaceful  boycott  is  in  itself  a  form  of  co- 
ercion. 


Beckv.  Ry.  Teamsters'  Protective  Union,  1898,  118  Mich. 
497. 

See  intimidation  statutes  of  Ala.,  Conn.,  Ga..  111..  Kv., 
Me.,  Mass.,  Mich.,  Minn.,  Miss.,  Mo.,  N.  H.,  N.  t., 
N.  D.,  Okla.,  Ore.,  P.  R.,  R.  I.,  S.  D.,  Tex.,  Utah,  Vt.,  and 
Wash. 


Interference  with  employment 

There  are  twenty  states  and  territories  prohibit- 
ing interference  with  employment.  These  necessarily 
affect  the  successful  determination  of  many  boycotts 
to  some  extent. 

See  Ala.,  Ark.,  Conn.,  Del.,  Ga.,  111.,  Kan.,  Ky.,  La., 
Miss.,  Minn.,  N.  Y.,  N.  J.,  N.  D.,  Ore.,  Pa.,  R.  I., 
W.  Va.,  Utah,  and  Wis. 


General  statutes 

About  twenty  states  and  territories  have  statutes  not 
containing  the  term  "boycott,"  but  which  may  be  fair- 
ly interpreted  as  prohibiting  boycotting. 

See  Ala.,  Conn.,  Fla.,  Ga,,  Me.,  Mass.,  Mich.,  Minn., 
Miss.,  Mo.,  N.  H.,  N.  Y.,  Okla.,  Ore.,  S.  D.,  N.  D.,  Tex., 
Utah,  Vt.,  and  Wis. 


26  BOYCOTTING 

Prohibition  of  boycotting  in  name 
'  Certam  states  liave  statutes  which  prohibit  bo)-cot- 
ting  as  isuch  under  the  name  "boycotting;/' 
See  Ala.,  Col.,  111.,  Ind.,  S.  C.,«  and  Tex. 

COURT   Ii\TI;RFi;RliNCE 

Common  law 

In  numerous  states  the  courts  proceed  under  the 
common  law  of  conspiracy.  This  may  either  result  in 
punishment  against  criminal  or  against  civil  conspir- 
acy.^ The  common  law  doctrine  depends  largely  up- 
on whether  or  not  the  intent  is  wiillful  and  malicious. 

Illegal  acts  accompanying  boycotts 

Whenever  there  i3  intimidation,  force,  coercion, 
threats  or  violence,  the  covirts  may  proceed  against 
the  illegal  act  accompanying  the  boycott,  and  may 
thus  check  the  boycott  to  a  certain  degree  even  in  the 
absence  of  both  statutory  and  common  law  provisions 
against  the  boycott  itself. 

Injunctions 

The  most  frequent  remedy  of  the  courts  is  the  in- 
junction. The  compound  boycott  is  generally  en- 
joined when  adequate  facts  are  ishown;  the  primary 
boycott  is  sometimes  enjoined  when  malicious  intent 
and  combination  are  shown;  the  unfair  list,  whose  le- 
gality is  as  yet  a  much  disputed  matter,  was  enjoined 
in  My  Md.  Lodge,  No.  18G.  et  al.  Adt.  1905,  59  At 
721. 


*'S.  C.  .statute  applies  only  to  trade  boycotts. 
•See  p.  8  for  the  law  of  conspiracy. 


„',lr  !;?!,'!,"f.,"''' "^^'"'•''•1  1  '""AHV  FArii  II  r 


AA    000  729  744    3 


